Energy Market Performance Analysis with CRITIC Based COPRAS Method: A Study on European Union Countries

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 1, 1 - 18, 30.06.2025

Adem Babacan , Yunus Emre Birol

https://doi.org/10.46790/erzisosbil.1563522

Öz

This study aims to analyze the energy market performances of EU member countries. For this purpose, the multi-criteria decision-making technique was used as a method. With this method, 15 criteria were determined to determine the performance ranking of 27 countries. The criteria are related to issues such as the share of energy resources in primary energy consumption, imported energy dependency, country diversity in energy imports, energy efficiency, energy intensity, greenhouse gas emissions and energy prices. The analysis determined the relative ranking of EU countries compared to EU member countries, not the absolute ranking. The findings showed that Sweden is the EU country with the highest energy market performance. The countries with the best performance after Sweden are Spain and France. Slovakia is the EU country with the lowest energy market performance. After Slovakia, other countries with poor performance are Estonia and Latvia.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Energy Market , European Union , Multi-Criteria Decision Making

CRITIC Tabanlı COPRAS Yöntemi ile Enerji Piyasası Performans Analizi: Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Öz

Bu çalışmada, AB üyesi ülkelerin enerji piyasası performanslarının analiz edilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaç için yöntem olarak çok kriterli karar verme tekniği kullanılmıştır. Bu yöntem ile 27 ülkenin performans sırasının belirlenmesi için 15 kriter belirlenmiştir. Kriterler, birincil enerji tüketiminde enerji kaynaklarının payı, ithal enerji bağımlılığı, enerji ithalatında ülke çeşitliliği, enerji verimliliği, enerji yoğunluğu, sera gazı salınımı ve enerji fiyatları gibi konularla ilgilidir. Analiz ile AB ülkelerinin mutlak sırası değil, AB üyesi ülkelere kıyasla nispi sırası tespit edilmiştir. Bulgular, enerji piyasası performansı en yüksek AB ülkesinin İsveç olduğunu göstermiştir. İsveç’in ardından en iyi performansa sahip ülkeler, İspanya ve Fransa’dır. Slovakya, enerji piyasası performansının en düşük olduğu AB ülkesidir. Slovakya’dan sonra düşük performans gösteren diğer ülkeler, Estonya ve Letonya’dır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Enerji Piyasası , Avrupa Birliği , Çok Kriterli Karar Verme

Kaynakça

• AN, Y., TAN, X., GU, B., ZHU, K., SHI, L., & DING, Z. (2023). An Assessment of Renewable Energy Development in Belt and Road Initiative Countries: An Entropy and TOPSIS Approach. Energy Reports, 10, 3545–3560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.09.085
• AYTEKIN, A. (2022). Energy, Environment, and Sustainability: A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Countries. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, 41(3), 281–316. https://doi.org/10.13052/spee1048-5236.4133
• BABACAN, A., & TUNCAY, M. (2022). Türk Enerji Sektöründe Çalışma Sermayesi ve Finansal Performans Arasındaki Etkileşim: SWARA, AHP ve TOPSIS Yöntemleriyle Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 1976–2005. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1097378
• BĄCZKIEWICZ, A., & WĄTRÓBSKI, J. (2022). Multi-Criteria Temporal Assessment of Affordable and Clean Energy Systems in European Countries Using the DARIA-TOPSIS Method. Procedia Computer Science, 207, 4442–4453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.508
• BİROL, Y. E. (2019). Avrupa Birliği Enerji Arz Güvenliği Politikası. Kriter Yayınevi.
• BİROL, Y. E. (2021). Doğal Gaz Arz Güvenliği Açısından Avrupa Birliği Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 44, 451–467. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.940976
• BRODNY, J., & TUTAK, M. (2021). Assessing Sustainable Energy Development in the Central and Eastern European Countries and Analyzing Its Diversity. Science of the Total Environment, 801, 149745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149745
• BRODNY, J., & TUTAK, M. (2023). Assessing the Energy Security of European Union Countries from Two Perspectives–A new Integrated Approach Based on MCDM Methods. Applied Energy, 347, 121443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443
• CABEÇA, A. S., HENRIQUES, C. O., FIGUEIRA, J. R., & SILVA, C. S. (2021). A Multicriteria Classification Approach for Assessing the Current Governance Capacities on Energy Efficiency in the European Union. Energy Policy, 148,(Part A), 111946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111946
• CUCCHIELLA, F., D’ADAMO, I., GASTALDI, M., KOH, S. L., & ROSA, P. (2017). A Comparison of Environmental and Energetic Performance of European Countries: A Sustainability Index. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.077
• DIAKOULAKI, D., MAVROTAS, G., & PAPAYANNAKIS, L. (1995). Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The Critic Method. Computers Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
• DIAKOULAKI, D., MAVROTAS, G., & PAPAYANNAKIS, L. (1992). A Multicriteria Approach for Evaluating the Performance of Industrial Firms. Omega- The International Journal of Management Science, 20(4), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)90021-X
• EUROSTAT. Statistical Office of the European Communities. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
• FIGUEIRA, J., GRECO, S., & EHRGOTT, M. (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer.
• GÖKGÖZ, F., & YALÇIN, E. (2021). Can Renewable Energy Sources be a Viable Instrument for Climate Change Mitigation? Evidence from EU Countries via MCDM Methods. In D. S-K. Ting & J. A. Stagner (Eds.), Climate Change Science (pp. 19–39). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823767-0.00002-1
• GÖKGÖZ, F., & YALÇIN, E. (2023). Investigating the Energy Security Performance, Productivity, and Economic Growth for the EU. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 42(5), e14139. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.14139
• GULER, E., YEREL KANDEMIR, S., ACIKKALP, E., & AHMADI, M. H. (2021). Evaluation of Sustainable Energy Performance for OECD Countries. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 16(6), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2021.1909673
• KAYA, İ., ÇOLAK, M., & TERZİ, F. (2018). Use of MCDM Techniques for Energy Policy and Decision‐Making Problems: A Review. International Journal of Energy Research, 42(7), 2344–2372. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4016
• KOZŁOWSKA, J., BENVENGA, M. A., & NÄÄS, I. D. A. (2023). Investment Risk and Energy Security Assessment of European Union Countries Using Multicriteria Analysis. Energies, 16(1), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010330
• MAKRIDOU, G., ANDRIOSOPOULOS, K., DOUMPOS, M., & ZOPOUNIDIS, C. (2015). A Two-Stage Approach for Energy Efficiency Analysis in European Union Countries. The Energy Journal, 36(2), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.36.2.3
• PHILLIS, A., GRIGOROUDIS, E., & KOUIKOGLOU, V. S. (2021). Assessing National Energy Sustainability Using Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(1), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1780646
• PODVEZKO, V. (2011). The Comparative Analysis of MCDA Methods SAW and COPRAS. Engineering Economics, 22(2), 134–146. http://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.310
• SIKSNELYTE, I., & ZAVADSKAS, E. K. (2019). Achievements of the European Union Countries in Seeking a Sustainable Electricity Sector. Energies, 12(12), 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12122254
• SIKSNELYTE-BUTKIENE, I., KARPAVICIUS, T., STREIMIKIENE, D., & BALEZENTIS, T. (2022). The Achievements of Climate Change and Energy Policy in the European Union. Energies, 15(14), 5128. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145128
• SU, W., ZHANG, D., ZHANG, C., & STREIMIKIENE, D. (2020). Sustainability Assessment of Energy Sector Development in China and European Union. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1063–1076. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2056
• TAŞTAN, S., & BİROL, Y. E. (2023). Türkiye’nin Enerji Arz Güvenliğinin Ölçülmesi ve Öngörüsü. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 75, 194–206. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1160349
• TUTAK, M. (2021). Using MCDM Methods to Assess the Extent to Which the European Union Countries Use Renewable Energy. Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering, 4(1), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.2478/mape-2021-0017
• TUTAK, M., BRODNY, J., SIWIEC, D., ULEWICZ, R., & BINDZÁR, P. (2020). Studying the Level of Sustainable Energy Development of the European Union Countries and Their Similarity Based on the Economic and Demographic Potential. Energies, 13(24), 6643. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246643
• VAVREK, R., & CHOVANCOVÁ, J. (2019). Assessment of Economic and Environmental Energy Performance of EU Countries Using CV-TOPSIS Technique. Ecological Indicators, 106, 105519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105519
• VAVREK, R., & CHOVANCOVÁ, J. (2020). Energy Performance of the European Union Countries in terms of Reaching the European Energy Union Objectives. Energies, 13(20), 5317. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13205317
• WANG, Z. L., YOU, J. X., LIU, H. C., & WU, S. M. (2017). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis Using Soft Set Theory and COPRAS Method. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 10(1), 1002–1015. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.2017.10.1.67
• WIĘCKOWSKI, J., KIZIELEWICZ, B., & SAŁABUN, W. (2024). A Multi-Dimensional Sensitivity Analysis Approach for Evaluating the Robustness of Renewable Energy Sources in European Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 469, 143225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143225
• WU, Y., DENG, Z., TAO, Y., WANG, L., LIU, F., & ZHOU, J. (2021). Site Selection Decision Framework for Photovoltaic Hydrogen Production Project Using BWM-CRITIC-MABAC: A Case Study in Zhangjiakou. Journal of Cleaner Production, 324, 129233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129233
• YOUSEFI, H., ARDEHALI, A., & GHODUSINEJAD, M. H. (2023). BRICS or G7? Current and Future Assessment of Energy and Environment Performance Using Multi-Criteria and Time Series Analyzes. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101164
• ZAVADSKAS E. K., & KAKLAUSKAS, A. (1996). The New Method of Multicriteria Evaluation of Projects. Deutsch-Litauisch-Polnisches Kolloquim zum Baubetriebswesen. Hochschule fur Technik. Wirtschaft und Kultur in Leipzig. 3 Jahrgang. Sonderheft, 3–8.
• ZAVADSKAS, E. K., KAKLAUSKAS, A., PELDSCHUS, F., & TURSKIS, Z. (2007). Multi-Attribute Assessment of Road Design Solutions by Using the COPRAS Method. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 2(4), 195–203.
• ZELENY, M. (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM): From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained? Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 18(1–2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.473
• ZHOU, K., WANG, Y., & HUSSAIN, J. (2022). Energy Poverty Assessment in the Belt and Road Initiative Countries: Based on Entropy Weight-TOPSIS Approach. Energy Efficiency, 15(7), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-022-10055-8
• ZIEMBA, P. (2022). Energy Security Assessment Based on a New Dynamic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework. Energies, 15(24), 9356. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249356